The Official Home of Correct Movie Opinions

John Reviews Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

I haven’t been a big fan of the Harry Potter film franchise at all. I thought the first 2 were ok… but the third one was just a total steaming pile of dung. Oh I hated it.

So here comes Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the fourth installment. Harry’s fourth summer and the following year at Hogwarts are marked by the Quidditch World Cup and the Triwizard Tournament, in which student representatives from three different wizarding schools compete in a series of increasingly challenging contests. Harry unintentionally ends up being selected for the Tri Wizard tournament in a series of disturbing events that all lead to one dreadful truth… the Dark Lord Volemort is preparing to return.

THE GOOD: The direction! If you’ve ever doubted the total importance of the director in a film… then just look at the differences between Mike Newell (The Goblet of Fire) and Alfonso Cuarón (Prisoner of Azkaban). Where Azkaban was sloppy, disjointed and erratic, Goblet of FIre is tight, focused and committed to the proper balance of character development, side plots and overall story progression. It was a refreshing change from the third film.

Young Social Awkwardness. One of the best side stories of the film is the big dance. The awkwardness of the young characters trying to find dates, the right thing to wear and everything else that goes along with it was wonderful. Very funny stuff and it added the proper amount of “light heartedness” to an otherwise dark and grim story.

The Visual Effects. The effects in the first 3 Potter films have been decent. Some shots have been horrible, and a few were wonderful but overall the haven’t been fantastic. The folks at Industrial Light and Magic really kicked it up several notches for The Goblet of Fire finally creating a visual sense of awe and wonder that have been missing from the first three films so far.

The Secondary Characters. A mark of a good film is when a character makes an impression on you. A very rare thing in film is when a minor secondary character makes an impression on you. For instance, the visiting Hungarian student who represents his school in the Tri Wizard Tournament, Viktor Krum, made me want to run out and grab a long fur hungarian/russian coat and start carrying a cool walking staff. The guy didn’t have any more than 4 lines in the entire film, and yet carried major significance. The same can be said for almost all the side characters in the film. Outstanding!

THE BAD:Emma Watson as Hermione Granger. Don’t get me wrong, miss Watson clearly has the most raw talent and overall potential out of any of the young Harry Potter cast. However, she’s like a young wizard with all the power of the universe at her disposal who hasn’t yet learnd how to master that power. Watson has far more pure talent than her maturity and limited experience know how to control properly. The result is that several of Hermione Granger’s scenes feel over-acted… making them a touch unbelievable. But give this young woman a few years… she is not only going to be mind blowingly attractive when she’s older… but she will also be a major Hollywood talent.

OVERALL: This is the first Harry Potter film that I can say I walked out of thoroughly impressed. This is a WONDERFUL film. It’s not perfect, and there is still room for improvement, but you will have a great time watching it. I’m happy to recommend it. I give Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire a solid 8.5/10.

42 thoughts on “John Reviews Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”

This was by far the worst film in the Harry Potter series. It was sloppy, and the directing was amaturish. Alfonso should not have been replaced as the director. He did an awesome job on Prisoner of Azkaban, which was much more structured and welldone than Goblet is.

This film could not make up its mind as to what the story should be about. Was it all about that stupid ballroom dance? Was it about the three tests, which each took about an hour of film to get to? Was it about Voldemort’s return?

The film was terribly violent in serveral seens. I also thought that the many sexual references were completely uncalled for in a Harry Potter movie, especially the scene with Harry in that bath with the ghost girl. This deffintely not a film for any child to see.

I was disgusted with this film, and walked out on it after about 2 hours. If you want to see a really good Potter film, skip this one and see the third, The Prizoner of Azkaban.

Simone…I was just messing with you and ol’Jonnny boy!!! I happen to think it rather funny. About the movie though…I am just finding it extremely odd that you all (non-book readers) can find this movie so satisfying. Even without the books entire back ground…the plot and acting are not up to par for what I was expecting. I guess this is what I get for listening to my mommy and reading books instead of camping out in front of the television. Actually it is a big problem for me…I read the book and then see the movie and then I am disappointed!!! So you would probably say to me “Then quit reading stupid”…to which I will reply…I like read the book first to create the world in my head first and then go see how someone else comprehends the world in thier view on screen.

Not meaning to defend John’s viewpoint again here, or else I will get the flak again from you, we are coming in the theater watching it WITHOUT having read any of the books and it worked. I am sure the book have a solid fan base and so has the movies, many have seen the film adaptations not having read the books and they were satisfied, in the same way that it has satisfied me, I wasnt expecting much from it because having not read the books, I can easily follow the story just watching the films. If we, the non readers are too keen about it, either we get the books or you guys, the readers can fill us in on it. But for now the film would suffice.

See…that is exactly what I mean…a writer or director looks at the story and decides he can do something better or choose what to add in or leave out depending on what he thinks will make his heart stir. LOTR was a great story (I personnaly liked the Hobbitt better) and the HP stories are great and need to be made in thier fullest. I remember reading the books after the first 2 movies came out and thinking…Damn, I cannot wait to see that on screen…so I went to the theatre with high expectations and left utterly disappointed. None of the characters had the strength of character on screen that they had in the books…except Hagrid. Obviously the kids are going to be weak at first…but most of the main “grown up” characters lacked drive. The 4th film was a big disappointment for this exact reason…all characters lacked passion and it was evident to me. The director tried too hard to make the story flow around the FACT of being darker…not the actual story itself being darker. And that is what I mean John, when I say the story was not there. The premise was there and the attitude was planted, but the story was not there.

LOL @ MechoPower. But I also sing praises for Richard, what about him? We dont want him left out do we? *laughs* I am just a charming sweet girl, take no notice of my schmaltziness. I’d do it for you too! *winks*

I still love Lord of the Rings after having read the books. But I was extremely disappointed with the way The Two Towers and Return of the King was made if we will of course look to the book for its accuracy, I thought what right do they have to alter so much? Especially when they decide to turn Frodo against Sam? That was sacrilege! When interviewed as to why they decided to that, Philippa Boyens, one of the writers said, “to add more drama”. Sure, as if the story isnt already dramatic enough?

Ok, I can agree with you having to be able to separate the two…the book and movie…but the movies are adaptations of the book. The whole point of the movies being made is to bring to life what you read in the books universe. What is the point in making a movie that does not stick strictly to the story…you might as well call it something else if you arent going to use the original story from which the supposed adaptation is coming.

The movie disappointed me because it was given so much hype for being more grown up and darker and it has given hope that the rest of the series will start picking up with this. Now I do agree that the movie was a little darker than it’s previous films, but it was in tune to the story of the book…the director and actors didn’t do anything to make it more dark and sinister…their characters are a little more convincing because they have been in this role for so long that they are comfortable. That is why the plot seemed forced to me…they were TRYING to get you to feel the “coming of age” persona these characters are portraying when it was already there in the story.

I remember when the first two movies came out and they got so much praise for being so in tune with the books…that is why the public loved them…the story was not being changed and we got to see the world brought to life on screen. With these last two movies…the premise is being slightly shied away from and that is what disappointed me and ruined the movie for me. Now we are starting to get the directors rendition instead of THE story.

With LOTR (to Simone), I thought the movies were just kick ass…simply the best things I had ever seen, that is until Return of the King came out and then I was like WHAT!!!…that is how you are going to end the series…you got to be kidding me…how stupid…so I went to read the books to get the whole story and I almost couldnt make it, it was too weird for me…it was killng me…but the movies still kick ass to me…so that was an instance in which reading the book was bad for me. And on a side note to Simone…I have noticed through other blogs you write that you and John just need to hook up!!!!!!!!!! You are constantly sweating his nutts hard girl…Come on John…give the girl some play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My main concern was that not enough attention was given to the main storyline. Focus was on the Triwizard tournament, the events of which weren’t particularly clever. The connection between the two was weak.

Thanks for answering my earlier question, if that’s the case, then it seems to be okay if the film has left out some things from the book. I guess that’s the only slight disadvantage that the non-readers have. It is still my contention that the films are quite comprehensive.

Simone, just to answer your earlier question, the movie certainly could not keep everyhting from the book, that would be impossible but it did a decent job of continuing the plot. I started reading the books before Azkaban came out on film as my then girlfriend now wife bought it, she loved the first two movies. I picked up the book and read it in a few days and I have been hooked like it’s crack since. I would definately take the books over the movies anyday but for the most part the films keep getting better I guess. It’s strange after all of the movies, when I walk out of the theater I am never all that impressed but later on DVD after a couple veiwings I like them more.

I have not read the HP books either but found the films watchable and entertaining. I think that was what John meant by being able to separate the two. We read books, and we watch films, two very different experiences. This was also the case of the Lord of the Rings trilogy for me. I saw Fellowship on DVD and have never read any of the books, but I was totally in love with the film. After reading all the books before Two Towers was released, I was singing a different tune.

Saw the first movie. Didn’t see Chamber of Secrets, or Azkaban. Still liked it.

Does anybody know the title of the CGI animiated film that’s trailer played before Potter. It’s the one with Little Red riding hood. I really want to do some more research on this movie but I can’t remember the title of it.

It just goes to show that everybody has different opinions. None more correct than the other and thats what makes us humans interesting.

That bit of philosophy aside, i think the DVD will be longer(much) and will fill in the blanks that have been left out. It “might” do a better job of showing us the tri-wizard thingey and we “may” get some more character development, but at the end of the day this children’s film falls very short of acceptable adult entertainment(perhaps its not supposed to??) and special effects should be used to enhance a movie not disguise the disjointed storyline and shaky acting.

In this case, and sadly most films nowdays, it just causes confusion and convoluted online discussions.

I loved Harry Potter 4. So it didn’t have every damn thing from the book but I don’t want to see a movie that’s excactly like the book. Otherwise that would be just plain boring. At least its not as bad as the third one. My folks who have never read the series didn’t know what the hell was going on. My mom actually fell asleep and I almost did too. It was directed to fans of the book which meant more than half of the audience that watched was asking questions like “what is that?” or “who is he again?”.They added some really retarted stuff that made me puke like the head things that talked in that annoying Jamaican voice. I mean who would like that shit.Not to mention the actors tried to be emmotinal and this their first time doing it so it seemed like they had just learned it after one minute and did’t practice doing those scenes. It was a desperate attempt. Not to mention the begginig right after that lame oppening sequence it goes straight to Aunt Marge coming over but how will non-readers of the book know who she is. Or in the begginig Harry asks Uncle Vernon to sign this. Another question like”What the hell is this?” they didn’t show it. If you haven’t seen the third one don’t. If you haven’t seen the fourth one. Go see it and read the third one later. Peace out!!!!

The problem I have with your arguments (and I love reading your comments by the way) is that you keep on pointing out your own logic flaws unintentionally. This was Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire THE MOVIE… not THE BOOK.

I didn’t have the disadvantage of comparing the movie to the book in the back of my head because I hadn’t read the book… AND THAT’S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

I watched this film from a clean slate. And as a non-Harry Potter fan… and from watching it from a clean slate… I found the plot, characters, visualls, cinematography, direction, editing and sub plots to be handled very well. It was the first Harry Potter film I trully enjoyed. This is a solid film.

There are no “SHOULD HAVES”. I thought the adaptation was a beautiful one.

So far, the only people I hear complaining about the film are people who are fans of the book… and even then there aren’t many of you. It seems like the vast vast vast majority of people like me (who did not have the disadvantage of reading the book first) thought it was a great film.

And that’s the point… to make a great movie on it’s own right… not in comparision to the book. Because in the end… all you’re left with is the movie (from a film makers point of view), so the movie has to stand on it’s own. In my opinion… Goblet of Fire did that. Very well. The vast majority of moive goers agree with me (althought that really doesn’t mean anything… because the “majority” of people also like the third film… which I thought was rubish).

Exactly John, even without reading the book, the plot was blotchy and forced. You cant tell me that you and/or your friends did not have questions as to why certain things were happening or what significance it had towards the movie. If you are just satisfied with a movie and not interested in the whole story that a book has to offer then how can you even think that your opinion on plot or story is even feasable. I know some people just dont have time to sit down and read, but please, spare us your rants about how well the story was told when you dont even know how the story WAS told. I am surprised that JK allowed so much to be left out and yes, some things left out do in fact have signigicance in the following films/books. The film was supposed to have been so much more mature than the rest of the movies, but the only difference is that Ron constantly says “Bloody Hell”, every other line…wow…so mature…sorry, but the pre puberty, love bug, my balls finally dropped from my stomach thing was totally unconvincing throughout the whole movie. And on a side note…the person above who said that Viktor and Fluer werent main characters and didnt require that much screen time…they were in fact main characters…the book was about the TRI-WIZARD tourney…not harry’s love infatuation. And they do come back and play parts in the following books.

What should have been the first defining moment of Harry√¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢s conscious life turned out to be sullied by poor story telling, poor editing and certainly poor direction, traits which were too apparent throughout this film.

Did Mike Newell ever read the books and if so did he ever fully understand the subject matter he was responsible for conveying to the big screen ?

Granted that the Goblet of Fire is so full of narrative and intertwining characters, that it was going to be nigh on impossible to put all this on film without rivalling the running time of one of the Lord of the Rings films. This still was no excuse for poor film making especially considering the fine cast that was available.

The story that is told is so disjointed with so many gaps in the plot, that it is a wonder that anyone without the knowledge of the book knew what was happening or why.

All I will say is that this film is consistent for not keeping in touch with the tone of the book.

A good example, is the scene where the Hogwarts Students are smiling and clapping their foreign counterparts bon voyage in the final scenes. This certainly does not fit my view of the book at that point.

Overall, the general public may say Goblet is an “entertaining” movie with great special effects.

I am, however, incredibly disappointed. My Number One complaint is with the music. WHY on earth did they ditch John Williams?! His score has been the most important binding ingredient through all the directorial experimentation. There is only one brief reference to “Hedwig’s theme” at the beginning of this film. The rest is new, noticably unfamiliar and lacking in energy. I found this score to be continually distracting, uninspiring, and downright sappy. (The “rock” party was jarring – but humorous). The worst moment was when Harry brings back Cedric’s body. The entire scene is weak and maudlin acting – however, with the right balance of musical queues it may have been saved. Unfortunately, the music enhances the awkward interpretation, and grasps at a desperate attempt to force the audience to tears employing sappy 1950ish chord progressions and overkill with violin. Please!!! Even my 14, 11 and 9 year olds were instantly turned off…in fact, as I perused the audience around me, no one was being allowed to cry because the music was so loudly doing it for us!

These movies cannot ever do justice to the books. I find myself progressively disappointed. Don’t get me wrong, I like the actors and their interpretaions overall, but there are so many wonderful details and nuances that are lost. This is because the books are rich and full (and LONG) and so the directors are forced to choose to substitute special effects over character development. I fear that too many youth and adults are depriving themselves of the REAL Harry Potter adventure that only comes from turning all of those crisp pages.

MechoPower, it’s been a while since I saw the other three movies so I’ll have to go back and watch them, but from what I remember there was a lot less character development in those. But the more I’ve thought about it Harry, Ron, and Hermoine were pre-pubescent in the earlier films so I guess it makes sense that their characters were not as defined. And talking about Krum and Fleur being under-developed, I agree, but with them I don’t really care because I know they’re not main characters and it would be very difficult to spend screen time developing supporting characters in addition to main ones. Perhaps they could have developed Krum & Fleur more, but the characters I cared the most about (Harry/Ron/Hermoine) were developed so I was happy.

I also agree that Ron and Harry’s argument was not totally convincing, but I forgive that because it is a kid’s movie.

As far as parts being left out of the plot, I can understand why you would be disappointed especially considering how little plot they cut out of the other films. My friend who read the Lord of the Rings books said the same thing about those movies. And I said the same thing about the Roald Dahl movies (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Witches, Matilda, etc.) What can you do I guess?

Can someone explain to me what character development there was in this movie??? That seems to be everyones defense for this movie, but we must not have watched the same movie because I saw none. All three heroes, not including Harry, where very poorly introduced on screen and each had only minimul screen time. There was like only 5 total lines from Viktor and Fluer together and they were hardly given any screen time. The big time thing in this movie was supposed to have been his little love bug for Cho Chang, and that was like 2 total scenes. Most part of the movie was spent on Harry and Ron fighting and even that was totally unconvincing. Some of the things left out of the book had plot development that followed over into the next book…one big one was that it was a house elf that conjured the dark mark with Harry’s wand. Then that among other things leads Hermione to start a House Elf Liberation Front that is actually quite entertaining. A big prize of 1000 (?) gold whatevers wizards use for money was supposed to be awarded to the winner and Harry gives it to the twins to start thier shop developments…i may be getting ahead of myself but the point is that the movie was terrible and the director left out so much material that actually had relevance to the next book/movie. There was no character development in this movie and the plot seemed just thrown together…this movie actually had me wondering when it was going to end so I could stop torturing myself…it is the most terrible one in the franchise so far.

I am not a Harry Potter fan but I have seen all 4 films in the cinema. And my favorite has been Azkaban, and now Goblet of Fire. I also have no plans to read the books, but just wait for the films. (So many books to read on my shelf and so little time to read ’em all)

I have just one question to ask the Potter fans who have read the books:

1. To those who feel that the adaptation of the 4th book was not very good, and that it has left out a few things which as a non reader I have no clue about, did it actually alter the plot of the series?

I original wanted to wait till each movie was out before reading the books,well i got impatient and now I like many others is paying for it. The movie was well acted and graphicly good, but the amount of things that they cut or flat out changed was just wrong. It is my hope that instead of saying well lets make a really good action adventure and don’t worry about the actuall plot lines for later movies, that the producer of the next movie will be presudaded by either all of us fans or J.K herself to make the next film a two part movie so that they don’t butcher the story line again. It is even more important for the next movie sense there is a whole lot of story and character building. Who agree’s with me that they need to make a two part movie and realease it like they did for the matrix II,III. Film it like you would but don’t make all the cuts and actually stay true to the book please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with what Pablo said about JK sticking to a formula. I started to read the 5th book and put it down because I felt like I was reading a formula. A lot of people who finished that book said it was great like the rest of them, but I got bored with it. I think my tastes are just changing. I’m not interested in the story as much anymore and character development was not in the forefront at least in the beginning of the book.

I also agree with MechoPower that Voldemort was weak in Goblet. I wanted to be more scared, but I gotta keep reminding myself that kids are going to see these movies as well as adults so there has to be a balance. I know if I had a kid I probably wouldn’t him/her watching anything scarier than what was already in the film.

I also have to keep reminding myself that my adult tastes for emotional complexity and strong character development are not going to be met by kid films! I keep forgetting what these films are. They’re not trying to win Oscars (except for effects, that is!)

Like Arminius said I think the directors have matched the films. Chris Columbus of Goonies (writer) and Home Alone did the kiddie ones, Alfonso did the complicated plot one and Newell the pubescent one. I’m looking forward to the next movie even though I didn’t want to finish the book. I’m going to enjoy not knowing the plot going in.

Quidditch-we’ve seen it before, many times. What more is there to see about it? The big stadium? Well, you see the big stadium! I have very little interest in knowing how well a computer animator can flip around a computer animated guy on a computer animated broom. Basically, after the charge of the Rohan army, pretty much any other purely computer animated sequence is just kind of “eh.” Bigger, cleaner, faster, who cares? It’s just a bigger, cleaner, faster program.

Also, showing a lot of Quidditch in the beginning diminishes the effect of the broom riding in the dragon sequences. The flying there needed to be isolated for the maximum effect.

Huge chunks of the books were taken out. What are we missing? Dursleys? Seen ’em. House elves? Sooo seen ’em. A bit more giant talking? We may have had too much already…

I’m with Blake. The character development is crucial. The point of the entire series is character development, i.e. kids growing up and getting out of the protection of the adults and learning to cope on their own. The reason we care what happens in the end is that we know the characters are more than wizard guy, smart girl, and scared guy.

In addition, the strategy of the whole movie enterprise is giving the films to only one writer but multiple directors. Like the Decalogue, which had one director but multiple cinematographers, the end results are meditations on the nature of creativity itself, as you see the same subject over and over again, but from different creative viewpoints.

Mike Newell is a director of character developing, talky, socially-nuanced films. He was given the directorship of the most character developing, talky, and socially-nuanced book of the series. The childish movie director was given the most immature of the books. The narrative director was given one of the most narratively complex of the books. Each is playing to their strengths, and in the process revealing more of the whole than any one could alone. I couldn’t be happier with the results….

I can’t believe the critics are liking this movie as much as they are. PABLO is right. OK for kids who know no better, but for the rest of us, I think the movie was pretty boring and lacked any story strength whatsoever.

I was really quite disappointed with this movie…I went in with very high expectations and left very much let down. There was so much material left out of the movie from the book that it ruined it for me. I thought the plot was rather choppy and I felt like the story was being forced upon me the entire time I watched the movie. All characters were very poorly developed and rushed. Visually, I thought the movie was good with some pretty cool effects, but other than that, the movie was terrible. Fiennes (Lord Voldemort) was totally unconvincing for me…I expected him to be a little bit more pronounced and up front. And like the comments above…I was so looking forward to the Quidditch World Cup after seeing the previews and we didnt get anything…I really hope the next director can pull this off a little better.

Better than the other lot of hastily thrown together potter movies, but never a 8.5??? what the farrrrrk! its about a 5 if i am being generous.

These films(and books) have clearly been produced to make cash. Some of the previous posts mention stereotypical this and that. Well its all down to a formula, yes shock horror JK has used a writing formula to make money. Like i have mentioned before, much of her stories have been copied and once again this film is doing the exact same thing.

Great for the kids who don’t know any better, but very poor entertainment for any adult with intelligence.

Also, I was excited at first to see the huge arena where the Quidditch World Cup will be played. Everything looked SPECTACULAR, but then we didn’t even get to see any of the match. I was sorely let down

What I’ve been saying. Probably the coolest looking part of any Potter film to date and was nothing more then a quick glimpse.

Drewbacca’s opinion was very similar to my brother’s opinion of the movie. He wanted more plot. His favorite film was the Azkaban one. I disagreed with his opinion and Drewbacca’s because I liked how the focus in Goblet was more on character development over plot. Maybe it’s because I’ve read this book and already knew the plot or maybe its just because plots don’t interest me as much as character development. Maybe a little of both.

Don’t get me wrong though, I love an engaging plot, but I feel that with Azkaban the characters were servants of the plot rather than equals. I like a little of both. In Azkaban I felt like not much was revealed about the characters. We didn’t learn about their quirks and their relationship troubles as much as we did in this film with the dance sequence and the arguments between Ron/Harry and Ron/Hermoine. Granted they were still pre-pubescent in Azkaban, therefore not as emotionally complex, but I get tired of watching stereotypical characters like the nerdy know-it-all (Hermoine) and the goof-ball (Ron). The characters felt like stereotypes in Azkaban. I want to see flaws and emotional troubles. Like coping with sleeping in a closet with caretakers that think you’re the devil (Sorcerer’s) or insecurities about asking a girl out (Goblet). What do you think?

“Goblet of Fire is tight, focussed and committed to the proper balance of character development, side plots and overall story progression.”

WHAT!? The whole film is supposed to be about this huge Tri-Wizard tournament, yet each of the three tasks only take about 10 minutes of actual screen time each. Yet there are almost 40 minutes devoted to this huge dance that has absolutly nothing to do with the story. Sure, it’s a little bit of character development and maybe sets up some things for the next film, but it didn’t need to be there. The dragon battle was great, but it lasted only a few short minutes.

Also, I was excited at first to see the huge arena where the Quidditch World Cup will be played. Everything looked SPECTACULAR, but then we didn’t even get to see any of the match. I was sorely let down, and the film went to crap after that.

9/10 from me. I like the other Potter movies but wouldnt put them over a 7.5/10, 7/10 for Azkaban, which was a little too rushed…

this is the first of the series I’d label a true fantasy movie, rather than a family movie.

I read your review and was really looking out for what would be so bad about Hermione and I just didn’t see it, maybe I would have if i wasnt expected it to be bad, but well….

the trailers before this film…. heh….

I cant beleive that Shaggy Dog trailer, every bad thing I expected to happen, did. “bow wow yippie yo” song, “who let the dogs out” and “Everythings going to the dogs”…. oh poor Tim Allen. he really is better than this, but I dont think he’s willing to work a character any darker than the Galaxy Quest alcoholic borderline asshole.

He needs a creepy or dark movie…. bad. He’s more than Steve Martin-ized himself already.

Well, John, if you didn’t like the Harry Potter series (esp. the third one) you obviously DON’T GET IT. WHich in turn means that you should be writing about something else, not something you dislike to begin with.

I have been reading the books and as much as I liked the film, its the first time the HP movies have paled in comparison to its book. The first 3 were pretty dead on (there was some stuff missing or altered but not badly) but there are entire HEAPS of the book missing from Goblet.

Of course considering Goblet is nearly 3 times longer than the first 3 installments, it makes sense that they cant fit it all. I was half way through reading Goblet when I went to see the movie, and I have to tell you 15 mins into the film, the movie caught up to where I was.

I do hope that the future installments of this franchise will not suffer because of the increasing size of the books.

One of the interesting quotes I’ve heard from author JK Rowling was that she wrote the books for the age group that Harry was in the book, so as Harry and his friends got older, so did the content and maturity of the writing.

I remember being completely underwhelmed with the special effects when I saw the first Harry Potter movie. Computer generated characters like the troll in the bathroom and the centaur were horribly unrealistic – and completely not in line with comparable hot property movies released at the same time, but then I realized that they needed to be fake looking. A 8 year old child going to see his or her favorite book on film would be terrified if they were faced with a LOTR style troll on screen. So, like the books, it seems to me that the direction of the movies are staying true to the spirit of the books and are trying to keep the effects in line with the maturity of the story.